RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Thanks for saving me a lot of typing. You and SS hit every point I was going to make. The only thing I could think of adding would be for RSB to provide an example where severe winter weather produced a significant winterkill and decreased fawn recruitment in the southeast portion of the state over the last 45 years.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

"Are you a farmer Cornelius?"

I know exactly where you are headed, and there is no point to be made there. Nope, Im not. But I have family members and friends who are. And they arent much happier about the deer situation than I, becausethey toohunt. Being a farmer doesnt automatically make one "anti-deer". Deer season is aVERY popular event here.

And if one is, they have many options at theirdisposal. Dmap, redtag, andnew regulations where they can whack the deer 24 hrs a day.

Most I know dont suffer unacceptable losses (and thats in supposedlyone of the best deer areas of the state)andsomeeven plant a little extra just forthe deer.

Aside from crops like corn etc, Also many pasture fields, clover etc. are heavily utilized by deer and any mal-effects are not noticable. Because of the nature of the forage species themselves as well as the fact we've had MUCH higher deer numbers for a long time than we do now.

In this wmu the reverting farm fields and pastures etc outnumber active crop fields but it doesnt really matter, even those these provide great deer food and habitat, they arent counted either...

Fact is a very few wanted so many less deer. Most were fine as it was. SOme saw need for some reduction. Very few approve of the extremes we've gone to.

And like it or not, deer utilize the farmland. To not consider it is simply anti-deer pgc doin' their thing and business as usual.

Bluebird, sorry, didnt mean to "talk for you" but I saw some points to be made and couldnt resist the "easy pickens". It was just hangin' there likea fat juicy apple hanging overone of our starving Pennsylvania does noses.LOLOL.;)

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

You weren't talking for me, you were talking for the vast majority of PA hunters who know that the habitat can support a lot more deer than the PGC will allow. I really appreciate the fact that you and SS did such a good job explaining why our areas of mixed farmland and forests can support a lot more deer than the PGC says it can support.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

That's what I thought. Because no full time farmer would want 30 - 40 DPSM.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

If the farmer and his family were hunters,do you believe you statement would be true? If the farmer wasn't a hunter how many,ground hogs, rabbits ,squirrels ,geese and crows do you think he would want feeding on his crops? How much does the average farmer spend to control weeds,corn borer and alfalfa leaf hopper? Do you think the average farmer would pay an equal amount to a hunter to control the deer,crows,groundhogs or geese on his land or would he be more likely to charge the hunter for controlling those species.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

That statement is simply false. Many farms are becoming prime deer hunting real estate, as the buck fever in the midwest spreads eastward, and especially with deer herds so low on much of the public land. A farmer with a good deer population stands to make a profit from the potential revenue that hunting can generate. Leases and trespass fees are becoming as much a part of deer hunting today, as thirty- thirties and Woolrich plaid were years ago. Not to mention, as Cornelius said earlier, a high percentage of farmers are deer hunters as well, and for most, it is a family affair. I have to say i've heard as many farmers complaining about the low deer numbers as anyone. I know of atleast three farms that have temporarily restricted doe hunting, to allow the deer to increase. All three are large grain and dairy operations. All three at some point in time did kill for crop damage, and atleast one of them was previously enrolled in a red tag program. All three farmers hunt themselves. All three regret killing as many deer as they did over the last ten years. 35-40 dpsm? maybe at one time. Maybe it was higher. At this point it's only speculation. But Alsheimer's figure is not excessivefor a good agricultural area. What do you suppose DD are in Buffalo Co, WI, or Pike Co, ILL?

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Pgc wants us to believe every farmer wants less deer, every home owner wants less deer, every timberman wants less deer and over half the hunters want less deer. Guess thats why they have been sued, petitioned relentlessly (including by farmers and timbermen who hunt), gonna be audited, and cannot get a dime increase thanks to government intervention on our behalf.

Cant support their fatally flawed program and extreme herd reduction with the data and facts, so have to go the "human conflict route". Problem is,here, even by pgcs own assessment a few years ago on the annual report, the human conflict was listed as "LOW". And to my personal knowledge, always was... Yet the herd is still being "beaten" by obscene tag numbers previously and ever since.

Like I said, farmers who do want fewer deer have options. IF they dont want 35-40 dpsm, thats fine. Dmap, redtags,and the new shoot'em up legislation they have recently been given will effectively prevent that condition on their square milage, and probably a few of the surrounding to boot.;) Farmers who want fewer deer own very tiny percentage of this state, and not an acceptable excuse to hold tens of thousands of square miles far below cc.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Apparently you don’t understand that with the present deer management objectives and program all habitat available to the deer is taken into consideration. Obviously from his comments Bluebird either doesn’t understand it or wants to misrepresent it too. So I will once again explain how it works so people can see that you guys are mistaken in your opinions and your comments.

Under the old system of managing deer based on the over winter deer per square mile densities on forest land your argument that only forested habitat was considered would have been correct but that is not how it is done today.

Now all habitat available to the deer is being considered because the health of the deer is part of the management direction. Since deer herd health is determined by the adult doe reproductive rates obviously all of the habitat available to the doe being examined is being considered. If that doe had good enough food, whether it was forest habitat, farm crop habitat or someone’s garden or shrubs it was all considered as food eaten by that doe and used by her to either be healthy enough or not healthy enough to produce the number fawns she was carrying.

So deer herd health is presently being evaluated for ALL existing habitat all over the state. At least that is true on the surface though there is still more to it that the deer might not be able to tell us with just that reproductive rate data. Since the reproductive rate data only counts the number of fawns that dead doe was carrying at the time she died it doesn’t really tell us if those fawns were going to be born at the required weight to have survived after they were born. It doesn’t matter how many were born if the majority of them die within days of being born, When that happens they are just as none existent as if they had never been born. That is why other factors, such as forest health, also need to be factored into that same equation when determining if all is well or if things are still too tentative to allow the herd to increase.

But the fact is that all deer habitat and food is now part of the total deer management equation and not just forested habitat as a few of you are advocating.

You also seem to place a lot more credence to the word “acceptable” deer herd health then I do. What is acceptable to man might very well not be so acceptable to the deer this year should we have a bad winter with deep prolonged periods of snow cover. All that acceptable means is that the adult does were within a mid range level of reproductive rates. What those reproductive rates don’t tell you though is if those fawns are at the correct birth weight to survive after they are born. If they die a day or two after they are born, as often happens in marginal habitat, then having that “acceptable” rating didn’t help the deer population at all.

It is also concerning that the deer that get sampled are the ones living in the best habitat areas along the roads running through the farmlands and areas where hunters have always had the best access for keeping the deer numbers within the closest balance to the existing habitat. The deer that live far back in the remote areas, that never get their reproductive data sampled, might tell a very different story about just how acceptable their health and reproductive rates are.

“Acceptable” is a human definition and in this case simply based on a reproductive rate that is less then good even though it came from the deer sampled in the best areas. It might very well be that a high percentage of the deer living in the unit where the habitat isn’t as good wouldn’t agree with the acceptable rating if don’t find the habitat as acceptable as you do.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

That is a half truth. Forest health is the otherhalf of the deer mgt equation, and recent evidence is showing that the two are not as closely relative as once thought. The problem, is that the PGC is putting more emphasis on the forest health than the herd health. A WMU with fair or good herd health is not permitted to increase unless forest health is also at it's goal. We are seeing from the data, that the two have not increased in tandem, as the plan projected. In fact in some areas, breeding rates have decreased. The recent wildlife report presents a solid case against the plan.
Are you implying that through our deer mgt practices, we can completely take nature out of the equation? Is that what we are trying to do here? Odd, severe winters have been a part of our climate for thousands of years. You constantly reference these killer winters, and assume deer cannot paw through moderately deep snows, to reach mast and agricultural food sources underneath. Deer actually do quite well, as long as a thick ice crust does not develop. Such weather events are comparatively rare, and cannot be a determing factor in determining CC. Mother nature always holds the ace, after all. As far as deer fetal studies, are you implying that though we can accurately determine conception dates of fetuses, we lack the technology to weight the fetus, measure that weight against a known average, and project, based on the health of the adult doe, the approximate birth weight of the fawn? Incredible. I'll concede to you on the limited data base leaning toward deer sampling in more populated areas, but it would be a simple matter for the PGC to initiate similar studies in more remote pockets of habitat, incorporating bait sites, use of tranquilizers, or in some cases limited harvests for the sake of science. More than likely, cooperation with universities, and sportsmen's groups could even offset the costs of further research. There really are no valid excuses why their fetal sampling is still confined to populated areas. Claim lack of funds, but if they don't make more effort to please their customer, and stop telling us half truths to defend their flawed plan, they are just not going to get those funds. And our legislators will make sure of it.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

RSB says: "Apparently you don’t understand that with the present deer management objectives and program all habitat available to the deer is taken into consideration."

No itis not. Far from it. And you either dont understand my position or intentionally try to distort it.Pgc is quite decietful when they post deer density figures on their annual reports etc. When they say for example 20 dpfsm, that number is LESS than that, because they do not consider all the available habitat, especially in broken habitat and farm country.ITs very deceptive in thatItbloats the figure, and thats the intent. When all habitat were considered, the more realistic actual numbers are then seen LOWER, in some cases significantly so.

Despite your attempts to discredit...I know all about the herd health, as you could easily tell by my posts stating pgcs data which shows that there isnt a problem and in most areas never was. When breeding rates overall havent gone up but declined, shows there never was.


"Since the reproductive rate data only counts the number of fawns that dead doe was carrying at the time she died it doesn’t really tell us if those fawns were going to be born at the required weight to have survived after they were born."

Pgc uses the data of embryocounts etc. as herd health indicators. Once again, obviously due tosome apparent antideeragenda, even more extreme than pgc's own, you dont agree with them, and Im surprised you claim to agree with their deer program when you seldom if ever agree with them on ANYTHING. I agree with most basic principals, yet dont support the unwarranted slaughter that goes above and beyondsimply to cater tooutside interests. I also agree that generally speaking the herd health indicators they use are acceptable. I doagree with pgc, thatin an unhealthy herd, less embryos would be carried in the first place, than is found to currently be the case.

"You also seem to place a lot more credence to the word “acceptable” deer herd health then I do."

Thats because Im well awarePgc isVERY conservative in their data collection and analysiswhen consideringthe variablesthat could be seen as supporting more deer to exist. (LOL)

"What is acceptable to man might very well not be so acceptable to the deer this year should we have a bad winter with deep prolonged periods of snow cover."

Acceptable is acceptable.Man, In this case PGC has determined what they deem acceptable and not acceptable towards those deer. Not my term and not my parameters. Pgcrates "fair" as acceptable. That doesnt mean that rating will never improve. Itjust means we will wait and see, not take extreme measures.

"All that acceptable means is that the adult does were within a mid range level of reproductive rates."

And thats fine and dandy. we didnt need to rape the herd by over 50% in some areas when that was the case all along based on those herd health criteria.

"What those reproductive rates don’t tell you though is if those fawns are at the correct birth weight to survive after they are born. If they die a day or two after they are born, as often happens in marginal habitat, then having that “acceptable” rating didn’t help the deer population at all. "

Thats your theory and nothing more. To insinuate that on average habitat and herd health this would be a problem is absurd. IF you were speaking solely of the worst of the worst, Id venture a grudging maybe. But then these days, according to pgc data that isnt the case much of anywhere. In many places it never was. Again, you are only emphasizing your problems with pgcs deer management. Your concerns would be better voiced to Rosenberry, though I dont think he will be any more concerned with this doom and gloom theory than I.

"It is also concerning that the deer that get sampled are the ones living in the best habitat areas along the roads running through the farmlands and areas where hunters have always had the best access for keeping the deer numbers within the closest balance to the existing habitat. The deer that live far back in the remote areas, that never get their reproductive data sampled, might tell a very different story about just how acceptable their health and reproductive rates are."

Again...another problem YOU have withPGCS deer plan. Sounds to me like you should join USP. Isnt that why they are suing the commission?Insufficient reproductive dataetc. to support the program?Honestly seemsto melike you agree with them 100%, only the end product you disagree on. You wanna see fewer deer they want more. But you both agree on theunacceptable management of the deer herd and techniques being utilized. I actually dont have that problem with them so much as a problem with overkill that isnt supported by the data, and basically going above and beyond to cater to people like audubon etc.

"It might very well be that a high percentage of the deer living in the unit where the habitat isn’t as good wouldn’t agree with the acceptable rating if don’t find the habitat as acceptable as you do."

They have no problems with it anywhere in the wmu where Im from. Period. Never a poor rating. Fair, but Id put it with the best in the state. Apparently pgc did as well when they made it a 4 point area instead of 3. Herd was very healthy previously, and habitat just peachy. Now that we've since been sniped down by over 50-60% owdd, Id say we have as much toworry about deer herd health here now, as does the manon the moon....We are now supposed to be in stabilization mode...Yet the obscene allocation here, more than issued to reduce previouslytells another tale.